[Standards] [Operators] Future of XMPP Re: The Google issue

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at stpeter.im
Thu Dec 5 02:51:11 UTC 2013


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 12/4/13 7:38 PM, Alexander Holler wrote:
> Am 05.12.2013 03:17, schrieb Peter Saint-Andre:
>> On 12/4/13 7:04 PM, Alexander Holler wrote:
>>> Am 05.12.2013 02:51, schrieb Evgeny Khramtsov:
>> 
>>>> That's XMPP as it is: if something can be done by hands it
>>>> will be done by hands :) There are no problems in XMPP. Oh
>>>> wait... The only problem is TLS in virtual hosting. Let's
>>>> invent 3 specs to solve it :)
>> 
>>> I wouldn't be so hard. It's a historical grown up protocol and
>>> it isn't that bad, It solved a lot of problems and is well
>>> described. There are much uglier things around. But maybe M2M
>>> offers the oportunity to speak about some changes.
>> 
>> The m2m people I've talked with -- OpenADR, ISO, IEC, UPnP,
>> oneM2M, etc. -- seem to care most about the fact that XMPP has
>> been a standard for 10+ years, has a clear security story, is
>> known to scale, and is extensible (they often have XML payloads).
>> Something shiny and new wouldn't appeal to them.
>> 
>> However, if you guys go off and design something shiny and new,
>> do all the work to standardize it at the IETF, extend it in
>> various ways, and wait 10-15 years for your technology to become
>> stable and "safe", I'm sure that boring old industries like the
>> electrical grid will take an interest. Of course, by then the
>> technology that was once shiny and new will itself be seen as
>> crufty and ugly by the cool kids working on hot new stuff. :-)
>> 
>> For the record, personally I'm quite interested in some of the
>> new DHT-based systems out there (e.g., Jeremie's telehash
>> project), and such things could be used for m2m communication. I
>> don't particularly think that the standards at xmpp.org is the place
>> to discuss and design such technologies, except if there are
>> integration points of interest.
> 
> So that sounds like XMPP hase come to the end of it's evolution,
> and possible changes are neiter welcomed nor should be discussed
> here.
> 
> For me that sounds like RIP XMPP, popcorn times have started.

By no means has evolution ended -- we're still working on lots of
interesting topics like WebRTC/Jingle, IoT/m2m, DNSSEC, certificate
transparency, OTR, etc. We're just not doing it the way you want to do
it (as far as I understand your comments on various lists of late, and
please correct me if I'm wrong). So I'm suggesting that you work on
what you want to work on, which doesn't sound like XMPP but instead
sounds like something new and different. That will leave folks on this
list free to work on the topics I've listed above (and more), instead
of rehashing design decisions that were made in 1999. At this point, I
don't think the current discussion is productive for you or productive
for the other folks on this list.

Peter

- -- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.19 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
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=hXSd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



More information about the Standards mailing list